Glad the legal professional organizations are speaking up, but they aren't talking about the elephant in the room
Today, the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) finally put out a statement saying they are "very concerned" by Trump regime members questioning the "courts' authority to review the legality of executive action." The entire statement is fairly tepid compared to the one put out by the American Bar Association a week ago. Law school deans are afraid of the Trump regime and the AALS had to get consensus from a wide range of law schools, both factors that probably led to a watery statement. Still, it is notable that the AALS has finally spoken up in the face of the Trump regime's ongoing disregard for law and the U.S. Constitution. That they issued any statement criticizing the regime tells you how bad the lawlessness is.
In both statements, you can see the strategy at work here. These professional organizations are trying to fortify and box in Chief Justice John Roberts and his Supreme Court. The AALS letter quotes Roberts directly, referencing his publicly stated distress over "violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges" which he characterized as a threat to rule of law. The ABA "call[ed] for every lawyer and legal organization to speak with one voice and to condemn the efforts of any administration that suggests its actions are beyond the reach of judicial review." Both the AALS and the ABA are signaling to Roberts that they expect him and the other members of the Supreme Court to demand enforcement of judicial orders. They are trying to make it harder for him to cave in the face of recalcitrance from the Trump regime.
What neither organization is addressing is the likelihood that Roberts and the other reactionary justices on the Court will save Trump by simply ruling that lower courts who order members of the regime to comply with the law and the Constitution got the law and the Constitution wrong. If the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rules that the law and the Constitution permit the doings of Trump, Musk, and the various Cabinet and other executive branch appointees, then there won't be any judicial orders that these people will not be complying with. In other words, Roberts and company can avoid a showdown with the Trump regime by saying that its operatives and actions do not conflict with the law. Roberts' opinion for the Court in Trump v. United States indicates this path. There, Roberts broke from all U.S. legal precedent and American legal tradition by putting Trump, as President, beyond the reach of much criminal law. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett won't have to strain as hard to rule for the current Trump executive branch as each challenge to its acts reaches them. Roberts and the rest will parse the conduct and reinterpret the statutes and, if they need to, rewrite the Constitution so that they can avoid having to demand that members of the Trump executive comply with an honest reading of the law and the facts.
Organizations like the AALS and the ABA are not prepared for this. If you keep saying everybody must respect and obey judges, then presumably, everybody must respect and obey the Roberts Court. The problem is that the Roberts Court is corrupt and in Trump's corner.